If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means. Introduction

Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions. Evidence for a large number of transitional forms to bridge the stages of this process is critical to prove the abiogenesis theory, especially during the early stages of the process. The view of how life originally developed from non-life to an organism capable of independent life and reproduction presented by the mass media is very similar to the following widely publicized account:

Four and a half billion years ago the young planet Earth... was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began... The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one-celled animal]. Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas. These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world. They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms... From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth (from the Emmy award winning PBS NOVA film The Miracle of Life quoted in Hanegraaff, 1998, p. 70, emphasis in original).

Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution (1997, p. 105).

The question on which this paper focuses is “How much evidence exists for this view of life’s origin?” When Darwinists discuss “missing links” they often imply that relatively few links are missing in what is a rather complete chain which connects the putative chemical precursors of life that is theorized to have existed an estimated 3.5 billion years ago to all life forms existing today. Standen noted a half century ago that the term “missing link” is misleading because it suggests that only one link is missing whereas it is more accurate to state that so many links are missing that it is not evident whether there was ever a chain (Standen, 1950, p. 106). This assertion now has been well documented by many creationists and others (see Bergman, 1998; Gish, 1995; Lubenow, 1994, 1992; Rodabaugh, 1976; and Moore, 1976).

This is ridiculous. We need fossil "missing links" of molecules that lead to life? Those would surely not be preserved. Secondly, what about the virus? I would argue that it is a living transitional between life and nonlife, because it has some characteristics of life (a genetic code, the ability to reproduce) but cannot reproduce outside of the cell.

Secondly, this organism does not have to come together all at once, not by a long shot. Current theories of abiogenesis posit that a simple replicating molecule was formed, and then through mutation and selection evolved into life. Such replicators have been produced in the laboratory.

Thirdly, the first replicator need not be autotrophic. It need only be something that can stay around long enough to make a few copies of itself. Besides, evidence indicates that the ocean was a several percent solution of organic materials. The first organisms would have almost certainly fed off of that, and would therefore not have to eat other organisms or produce their own food from sunlight as organisms do now.

what about the virus? I would argue that it is a living transitional between life and nonlife, because it has some characteristics of life (a genetic code, the ability to reproduce) but cannot reproduce outside of the cell.

Or how about prions? They are replicators of a sort, although being proteins they would need some kind of nucleic acid polymer to make them in the first place. But the point is, under certain conditions, non-living chemicals can make more of themselves.

Oh what's the use? As you say, we'll never find the fossil molecules. Even if we actually created life, from scratch, in the lab, creationists would complain that we were the "intelligent designers". As with any truly great conspiracy theory, no amount of proof will ever be enough to dissuade a dedicated nut of his delusion.

Logged

I stopped believing for a little while this morning. Journey is gonna be so pissed when they find out...

what about the virus? I would argue that it is a living transitional between life and nonlife, because it has some characteristics of life (a genetic code, the ability to reproduce) but cannot reproduce outside of the cell.

Or how about prions? They are replicators of a sort, although being proteins they would need some kind of nucleic acid polymer to make them in the first place. But the point is, under certain conditions, non-living chemicals can make more of themselves.

Oh what's the use? As you say, we'll never find the fossil molecules. Even if we actually created life, from scratch, in the lab, creationists would complain that we were the "intelligent designers". As with any truly great conspiracy theory, no amount of proof will ever be enough to dissuade a dedicated nut of his delusion.

It is true that if we ever create life in the lab we will be a step away from showing it can happen on its own. But that problem would easily be solved by doing some probability calculations. We simply need to figure out something that is likely enough to happen in the given time and space.

When life arose in the first place it came through a natural process. Wouldn't it still be arising somewhere, under the same conditions? Couldn't we find in effect living fossils or at least bits of organic slop becoming alive?

Wouldn't that dispell the creationist drivel? Obviouslt these things would be part of the food change but shouldn't they still exist?

When life arose in the first place it came through a natural process. Wouldn't it still be arising somewhere, under the same conditions? Couldn't we find in effect living fossils or at least bits of organic slop becoming alive?

Wouldn't that dispell the creationist drivel? Obviouslt these things would be part of the food change but shouldn't they still exist?

A very good question! Not dumb at all.

The environment today would make it hard for abiogenesis to establish a foothold. Living things now are highly specialized to find food and compete for it. New naked replicators wouldn't have much of a chance against them.

But not impossible. In fact, scientists are currently looking for "alien" life on earth. Problem is nobody knows exactly what to look for, or where it might be. There was a SciAm article about it a few months back. I'll try to find it.

Logged

I stopped believing for a little while this morning. Journey is gonna be so pissed when they find out...

Bahramthered, we have an oxidizing atmosphere and extremely aggressive bacteria (as well as a fairly complex chemical environment). Organic compounds tend to break down unless protected in some way, and bacteria seem to be everywhere we look.

So, for new life to form it would have to be in a low-to-no oxygen niche, and it would have to be totally uninteresting to bacteria that are in that niche, and any molecules that are around the new life have to not destroy it.

That doesn't prevent new forms of life from forming, but it does narrow down the places where it could form.

But, what do I know ... I'm not a biologist.

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

When life arose in the first place it came through a natural process. Wouldn't it still be arising somewhere, under the same conditions? Couldn't we find in effect living fossils or at least bits of organic slop becoming alive?

Wouldn't that dispell the creationist drivel? Obviouslt these things would be part of the food change but shouldn't they still exist?

Organic compounds which could form life are usually consumed by bacteria. Even if life did arise somehow, modern organisms are far more evolved and would instantly outcompete it.

Besides, you are assuming that life originating is a very probable thing. It almost certainly is not. From what we know, it took about 100 million years for the first bacteria to arrive, on an earth with about 10^15 litres of water.

Besides, no one thinks that life just suddenly came together. Most scientists think that self replicating molecules came first, and then evolved into life. For more info, see:http://www.godriddance.com/Abiogenesis.php

what about the virus? I would argue that it is a living transitional between life and nonlife, because it has some characteristics of life (a genetic code, the ability to reproduce) but cannot reproduce outside of the cell.

Or how about prions? They are replicators of a sort, although being proteins they would need some kind of nucleic acid polymer to make them in the first place. But the point is, under certain conditions, non-living chemicals can make more of themselves.

Oh what's the use? As you say, we'll never find the fossil molecules. Even if we actually created life, from scratch, in the lab, creationists would complain that we were the "intelligent designers". As with any truly great conspiracy theory, no amount of proof will ever be enough to dissuade a dedicated nut of his delusion.

what about the virus? I would argue that it is a living transitional between life and nonlife, because it has some characteristics of life (a genetic code, the ability to reproduce) but cannot reproduce outside of the cell.

Or how about prions? They are replicators of a sort, although being proteins they would need some kind of nucleic acid polymer to make them in the first place. But the point is, under certain conditions, non-living chemicals can make more of themselves.

Oh what's the use? As you say, we'll never find the fossil molecules. Even if we actually created life, from scratch, in the lab, creationists would complain that we were the "intelligent designers". As with any truly great conspiracy theory, no amount of proof will ever be enough to dissuade a dedicated nut of his delusion.

It is true that if we ever create life in the lab we will be a step away from showing it can happen on its own. But that problem would easily be solved by doing some probability calculations. We simply need to figure out something that is likely enough to happen in the given time and space.

Abiogenesis is not likely to happen, even given enough time and space. In the same way, as Shakespeares Hamlet will not be written just given enough space and time. Intelligence is needed. Same with life. Intelligence is needed to produce the information in the cell.

When life arose in the first place it came through a natural process. Wouldn't it still be arising somewhere, under the same conditions? Couldn't we find in effect living fossils or at least bits of organic slop becoming alive?

Wouldn't that dispell the creationist drivel? Obviouslt these things would be part of the food change but shouldn't they still exist?

A very good question! Not dumb at all.

The environment today would make it hard for abiogenesis to establish a foothold. Living things now are highly specialized to find food and compete for it. New naked replicators wouldn't have much of a chance against them.

But not impossible. In fact, scientists are currently looking for "alien" life on earth. Problem is nobody knows exactly what to look for, or where it might be. There was a SciAm article about it a few months back. I'll try to find it.

wrong. abiogenesis is actually impossible.

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.

According to the most generous mathematical criteria for evolution, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes

In order a molecule to be a self replicator , it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. On the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible.

That lead Leslie Orgel to say :

It would take a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the primitive Earth.

(Dover, 1999, p. 218).

I would have thought it relevant to point out for biologists in general that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences

Godexists, calendars and time also exist too. Please do not respond to threads that are years old since last being responded to. Start a new thread and reference the talking points again to start a new discussion.

Logged

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Hi, Godexists: please note that prior to your post in this thread, the previous post was from 2008. This is called "thread necromancy" and is not permitted here because, among other things, it's possible that all the original participants in the thread aren't here anymore. In cases such as this one, you should start a new thread on the same topic instead. A good rule to follow is that if the last post is more than about three months old, you should start a new thread instead of responding to the existing one.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios.

...and therefore, because we can't get ours head round it, "GODDIT!."

Is that supposed to be some sort of argument?

Just think about it -> From the very beginning of time, everything had to come into place, not least computers being invented, for Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. to be able to write that piece so I could see it. Now, what are the chances of that ever happening?

Edit to fix quotes-GB

« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 09:41:15 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”